CommunityPam's House Blend

Mitt calls for federal marriage amendment

Since Mitt’s been on the receiving end of criticism by the Freepi for “allowing” Massachusetts to go the way of the sodomites, it was no surprise that he’s out of the box today bleating for a federal amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. (Raw Story):


[CNN] then showed Mitt Romney objecting that “they could either take the decision away from the people or they could give the decision to the people, and the state legislature of Massachusetts decided to not allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage.”

Romney’s proposed answer to this refusal to allow “the people” to choose was that “we need to have a Federal marriage amendment … because states like Massachusetts will take the course they did.”

***

The whining bible-beating babies of the Bay State continue babbling. Here’s Pastor Neil C. Damgaard of the Dartmouth Bible Church. who said he’s willing to start collecting signatures all over again to get an amendment on the ballot:

“We’re not going away. We’re not going to go belly up and say, ‘You win.'”

…How many issues are — and I keep coming back to the word ‘fundamentally’ – about the most basic stuff of society, what defines marriage? We will debate and lobby and any other verbs for the rest of our lives to preserve this institution,” he said.

It doesn’t mean we’re homophobic. It doesn’t mean we’re bigoted. It doesn’t mean we’re hateful,” he said. Rather, based on the New Testament, gay marriage and homosexual practices are plainly wrong – and not comparable to civil rights denied on the basis of race.

Right.

Previous post

Shorter Schloz and the IG

Next post

Peppermint Tea and Padilla

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding

34 Comments